However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On April 27, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime as a crime of violating road traffic law in support of the Sungnam-gu Friwon method, and KRW 4 million for the same crime in the same court on April 25, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.109% among blood transfusion, the Defendant driven a BN-si car in the section B from approximately 5km to the front road of the same Sintan-si Dong Dong Dong-dong office in the Gyeonggi-si without a driver’s license from the front road of the Sinpo-si, Busan-si, Busan-si. to the front road of the same Sinpo-dong Dong-dong office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the defendant in the third public trial records;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history (A), investigation report (Attachment to the same type of force);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishment provided for in a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act with heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following sentencing grounds) is different from the criminal history, the degree of main driving, the distance of driving, etc. of the defendant, and considering the fact that the defendant does not appear on the sentencing date and does not comply with the trial procedure after the closure of contact, the nature of the crime and the criminal situation are heavy.

However, the same force of the defendant is two times, there is no record of punishment exceeding fine due to the same kind of crime, and the defendant recognized the mistake in the investigation agency and the court and reflected it.

In addition, the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act shall be integrated and determined as per the disposition.